Bombay High Court
Ajay S/O Rameshlal Methani And 3 ... vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Gadge ... on 7 July, 2021
Bench: V.M. Deshpande, Amit B. Borkar
Judgment 1 apl588.21.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 588/2021
1] Ajay S/o Rameshlal Methani,
Aged 24 years, Occ. Business,
2] Vijay @ Viju S/o Rameshlal Methani,
Aged 35 years, Occ. Business,
3] Ravi S/o Anandrao Methani,
Aged 30 years, Occ. Business,
4] Pawan @ Vishal Lalchand Methani,
Aged 24 years, Occ. M.R.,
All R/o. Rampuri Camp, Jhulelal Lane,
Amravati, Tq. & Dist. Amravati
.... APPLICANT(S)
// VERSUS //
1] State of Maharashtra,
Through P.S.O., P.S. Gadge Nagar,
Amravati, Dist. Amravati
2] Jaykumar Ramchandra Methani,
Aged 33 years, Occ. Business,
R/o. Rampuri Camp, Jhulelal Lane,
Amravati, Tq. & Dist. Amravati
.... NON-APPLICANT(S)
*******************************************************************
Shri P.V. Navlani, Advocate for the applicant(s)
Shri S.S. Doifode, APP for the non-applicant no. 1
Shri V.S. Uberoi, Advocate for the non-applicant no. 2
*******************************************************************
CORAM : V.M. DESHPANDE & AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.
JULY 07, 2021
Judgment 2 apl588.21.odt
JUDGMENT : (PER:- AMIT B. BORKAR, J.)
1] Heard.
2] RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3] This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure challenging registration of F.I.R. No. 1416/2021 dated
14/05/2021 registered with the non-applicant no. 1 - Police Station for the
offences punishable under Sections 307, 323, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian
Penal Code.
4] The first information report came to be registered against the
applicants with the accusations that in an altercation between the applicants
and the non-applicant no. 2, the applicant no. 2 assaulted the non-applicant
no. 2 with iron pipe with an intention to kill the non-applicant no. 2. It is
also alleged that the other applicants assaulted the non-applicant no. 2 with
blows and fists.
5] The applicants have therefore challenged registration of the first
information report by filing the present application. During the pendency of
the present application, the applicants and the non-applicant no. 2 have
mutually resolved their dispute. The non-applicant no. 2 has filed a
Judgment 3 apl588.21.odt
statement on oath by way of reply dated 16/06/2021. It is stated that due to
misunderstanding between the applicants and the non-applicant no. 2, cross
complaints were registered against the applicants and the non-applicant
no. 2. It is stated that the young members of the families have realized their
mistakes and have decided to resolve their dispute caused due to
misunderstanding. It is also stated that the non-applicant no. 2 does not want
to continue with his complaint against the applicants.
6] It is true that the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal
Code is of serious nature and is an offence against society and therefore it
cannot be quashed by consent of the parties. At this stage, it would be
profitable to refer the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Narinder Singh & others Vs. State of Punjab & another reported in AIR 2014
SCW 2065. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court makes it clear that
the Court cannot declare to quash the first information report merely because
the first information report incorporates a particular provision which is a
serious offence or an offence against society. The Court has to make an
endeavour to find out whether the first information report indeed discloses
the ingredients of such offence and the Court can accept the statement and
quash the first information report after the Court is of the opinion that such
an offence is unnecessarily incorporated in the first information report.
Judgment 4 apl588.21.odt
7] On careful consideration of the first information report and the
reply filed by the non-applicant no. 2, it appears that registration of the first
information report was due to business rivalry. Insofar as the allegations of
assault by using the iron rod is concerned, learned APP made a statement
that there is no injury caused to the non-applicant no. 2 in the assault
allegedly made by the applicants. In view of the said statement, the essential
ingredients of Sections 307 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code are not made
out. Since the parties have amicably resolved their dispute, there is no
impediment in quashing the first information report against the applicants.
8] The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot
Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2008) 4 SCC 582 has held that the criminal
Courts are already burdened and when the parties have amicably settled
their dispute and chances of conviction are bleak, it is not advisable to
continue with the criminal proceedings.
9] In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the cases of Narinder Singh (supra) and Madan Mohan Abbot (supra) and in
view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are satisfied that
the first information report registered against the applicants deserves to be
quashed and set aside.
Judgment 5 apl588.21.odt
10] Hence, the following order:-
F.I.R. No. 1416/2021 dated 14/05/2021 registered with the
non-applicant no. 1 - Police Station against the applicants for
the offences punishable under Sections 307, 323, 504, 506 and
34 of the Indian Penal Code is quashed and set aside.
Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
(JUDGE) (JUDGE)
ANSARI
